JUDGMENT : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (A) The respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Photographer w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 26.07.1985 with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and make payment of salary in regular pay-scale (Rs.640-1180/-as per Annex.13) applicable to the post and; (B) Further the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all other admissible allowance to the petitioner as applicable to the post of Photographer and; (C) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay entire arrears along with all consequential benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum within the stipulated period as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court and; (D) the respondents may kindly be directed to extend all the benefits to the petitioner i.e. grant of selection grades in accordance with Revised Pay-scale Rules, annual grade increments etc. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be made in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner has successfully passed the Apprentice Training Course in Photography, from the Government of India Institution, conducted by the JJ Institute of Applied Art, Bombay, in the year of 1977. Thereafter, the Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, Sukhadia University, Udaipur vide order dated 15.07.1985 appointed the petitioner on the post of Photographer, on daily rated basis @ Rs 20/- per day. 2.1. Thereafter, vide orders dated 09.10.1985, 10.09.1985 and 26.10.1985, the service of the petitioner was extended by the concerned authority. The service of the petitioner was again extended and daily wages were also increased from Rs.20/- to Rs.30/-, vide order dated 10.12.1985. 2.2. The Director of Agricultural Experiment Station, Sukhadia University, Udaipur vide communication dated 04.12.1986 has recommended the case of petitioner for regularization. The respondent-authority vide order dated 08/10.01.1987 appointed the petitioner on the post of Photographer on consolidated wages of Rs.780/-per month temporarily, till regular selected candidate joins. 2.2. The Director of Agricultural Experiment Station, Sukhadia University, Udaipur vide communication dated 04.12.1986 has recommended the case of petitioner for regularization. The respondent-authority vide order dated 08/10.01.1987 appointed the petitioner on the post of Photographer on consolidated wages of Rs.780/-per month temporarily, till regular selected candidate joins. Thereafter, the respondent vide order dated 18.04.1987 stated that on approval of the Vice-Chancellor, the salary of the petitioner be charged from the regular post of Photographer. The petitioner’s tenure was again extended vide order that 12.07.1988. The petitioner submitted an applications dated 23.03.1987 and 14.11.1987 for grant him regular pay-scale. 2.3. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner have not been regularized by the respondent, and therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench and said petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1790/1987 for regularizing the service on the post in question, The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.11.1994 disposed of the petition with direction to the petitioner to make representation to appropriate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation before the authorities on 06.11.1995 and the respondents vide communication dated 17.09.1998 enclosing therewith the letter dated 02/18.05.1996 informed the Director (Research), Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner that the petitioner has not submitted the representation within the stipulated time, and therefore, no action can be taken in the matter. 2.3.1The petitioner again filed a writ petition and the same was registered as S.B. Writ Petition No. 2253/1988 before this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench; the said petition, vide order dated 29.11.1994, was dismissed as rendered infructuous, since the petitioner was re-engaged on the post of Photographer. 2.4. After the termination and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner was re-instated in service vide order dated 28.05.1991 by the Registrar, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner and he joined the said post on 22.06.1991. That after the bifurcation of the Sukhadia University, Udaipur, the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner was constituted and since the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durgapura, Jaipur was under control of newly constituted Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, therefore, the respondent vide order dated 5/7.06.1993, allowed all dearness allowance to the petitioner as per rules w.e.f. 01.06.1993. 2.5. After the bifurcation, the petitioner was working under the control of respondent-Maharana Pratap University of Agricultural and Technology, Udaipur. 2.5. After the bifurcation, the petitioner was working under the control of respondent-Maharana Pratap University of Agricultural and Technology, Udaipur. The petitioner was continuously working from 1985 to 1988 and thereafter from 1991 till date and respondents are treating the petitioner as temporary employee and not granting him the benefit of regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allowed the benefit of revised Pay Scale Rules w.e.f. 01.09.1998 and he has been fixed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 but he was allowed only minimum of the pay and the respondents did not grant regular increments to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the petitioner is continuously discharging his duties under the respondents in last 27 years but respondents are treating him as casual employee; the petitioner was superannuated in the month of June, 2016 after rendering continuous and satisfactory services to the respondents, but the benefit of regularization of his services was not granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of their submissions, relied upon the following judgments: (a) Jagdish Prasad Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3908/2014, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 22.03.2022). (b) Sampat Singh Rathore Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6591/2018, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 17.10.2022). (c) Mahendra Singh Chundawat Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2009, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 05.12.2022). (d) Mangi Lal Lohar Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3924/2014, decided by this Hon’ble Court on 16.01.2017). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Photographer; he was initially engaged on daily rated basis and thereafter, on fixed monthly wages. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Photographer; he was initially engaged on daily rated basis and thereafter, on fixed monthly wages. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the service of the petitioner was not continuous, and his service was terminated thereafter; after the termination, he was re-engaged on compassionate ground and he joined without any protest; therefore, the regularization of his services, as claimed, cannot be done. 7.1. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments : (a) Secretary, State of karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 . (b) State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247 . (c) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 397 . (d) Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2440 of 2010) decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 16.03.2010. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the regularization cannot be made retrospectively, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his services. He further submitted that the petition was filed belatedly in the year 2016 and the petitioner also never explained such an inordinate delay. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments also:- (a) Union of India & Ors Vs. Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230 . (b) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Shiv Chandra Singh Bhandari & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 179 (c) U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court. (d) Chandan Singh State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4269/1998, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 09.08.2012). (e) Rajendra Swami Vs. RSRTC & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2647/1997, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 04.10.2012). 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 10. (e) Rajendra Swami Vs. RSRTC & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2647/1997, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 04.10.2012). 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner has done the Photography Course and was appointed in respondent-university on the post of Photography in the year 1985 and terminated in the year 1988, thereafter, he was again appointed in the year of 1991 till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner has completed almost 27 years of service on the post of Photographer. This Court further finds that the present controversy regarding the regularization is already resolved by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “It is the case of the petitioner that the resolution dated 22.01.1998 was taken by the University of Bikaner to the effect that the services of all the adhoc employees would be regularized. As in pursuance to the said resolution, the services of the petitioner were not regularized therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2013, wherein the specific directions were given to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12849/2011; Mangi lal Lohar v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors. decided on 10.09.2013, which was inter alia decided in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . The petitioner further submitted that even in a similar case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8358/2009) decided on 05.07.2011, orders were passed by this Court for regularization of services of the petitioner therein which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and ultimately the Department regularized the services of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt w.e.f. the initial date of appointment. The present petitioner therefore, moved a representation before the respondent-Authorities with a prayer to decide his case in light of the judgment passed in Mangi Lal Lohar’s case (supra) and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra). The present petitioner therefore, moved a representation before the respondent-Authorities with a prayer to decide his case in light of the judgment passed in Mangi Lal Lohar’s case (supra) and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra). But vide order dated 26.04.2014, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Screening Committee on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was working had been abolished in the year 1998 and therefore, his services on the said post cannot be regularized. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed. ….. To start with, it is relevant to note that most of the grounds raised by the respondent-University were raised by it in the matter of Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt also and the same were dealt with and decided by the Court as under: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused entire pleadings of the case. In this matter, the respondents are not disputing the date of appointment of the petitioner which is 6/8.3.1978 on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. Even the respondents are not disputing the fact that resolution was passed by the Board of Management of the then University in which the petitioner was appointed which is Annex. 15 which runs as follows: 1. Such persons who have passed the prescribed jobtest/interview and are found qualified for the post and has been given appointment on ad hoc basis, their services be regularized from the date of Joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. Such persons although, fulfill the prescribed qualifications but have been given appointment on ad hoc/casual/fixed basis without job/test/interview their services be regularised after taking the prescribed jobtest/interview as per rules through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 3. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were appointed on ad hoc or casual basis without interview/job-test on the post for which they do not fulfill the minimum qualifications be deferred for providing details of such cases. 4. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were initially appointed on ad hoc basis, but subsequently regularized after taking their job-test/ interview and now requesting for regularizing their intervening period be deferred for providing details of such cases. The respondent University issued the notification dated 4/6.1.2000 to follow the above resolution and not disputing Annex. 4. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were initially appointed on ad hoc basis, but subsequently regularized after taking their job-test/ interview and now requesting for regularizing their intervening period be deferred for providing details of such cases. The respondent University issued the notification dated 4/6.1.2000 to follow the above resolution and not disputing Annex. 15, resolution passed by the then University. Following notification was issued on 4/6.1.2000 by the present University: “The Vice-Chancellor is pleased to order that till a set of rules are framed by the newly established Agricultural University, Udaipur, prevalent rules of RAU, Bikaner be followed by Agril. University, Udaipur. In addition to the above, various policy decisions taken by the BOM, Academic Council and other committees of RAU since 1987 shall also be applicable for Agricultural University, Udaipur till further orders.” ……... In view of the above facts, it can safely be concluded that the rejection of the petitioner on the ground that the post of Computer Assistant on which he was working no more exists with the University cannot be sustained. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that no such post exists then also, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been and is continuing to work with the respondent-University since last 25 years on the said post. In the case of Kaushal Devi Sharma, the petitioner therein was not even qualified for the service but she was granted relief by this Court on the ground that she had worked for more than 30 years with the respondent-University. In the said matter, to balance the equity, the Court had directed for regularization of the services of the petitioner on the post lower than what she was seeking regularization on keeping in view her respective qualification. So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned:- (i) Sheela Rani’s case (supra) was a matter pertaining to a casual worker and the specific question considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the services of a casual worker can be regularized with retrospective effect that is from the date of new appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheela Rani’s case (supra) held as under:- “10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheela Rani’s case (supra) held as under:- “10. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the order of retrospective regularization passed by the Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” (ii) So far as Chandan Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the regularization was not granted from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner therein only on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not provided under the Service Rules and therefore, he could not be treated as regular from the initial date of appointment. This is not the case in the present matter. The petitioner herein was appointed on a regular pay scale vide a regular process of selection on adhoc basis. It is not the case of the respondent University that the said appointment was irregular or illegal. Even in the cases of irregular appointment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) directed for regularization of services after completion of 10 years of services. As an upshot of the above mentioned discussion and in view of the ratio as laid down in Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra) the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The Order dated 26.04.2014 (Annex.-12) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer Assistant or any other equivalent post w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment in service i.e. 17.05.1988 with all consequential benefits. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of. 11. This Court further find that the judgment rendered in Jagdish Prasad (Supra) has also been upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Maharana Pratap University & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No. 588 of 2022) decided on 27.06.2022; relevant portion of which reads as under: “On independent scrutiny of the grounds taken in the appeal memo, as also the annexures thereto, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the material and documents which were placed on record by the parties. It is not in dispute that even prior to 1998, the respondent was given work on the establishment of the University and thereafter he was placed in a particular pay scale. It would be travesty of justice in case persons like the respondent is informed after retirement and despite unblemished service record that he is not entitled for regularization of service. The record produced by the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge itself indicates that the original petitioner has rendered his services in a particular pay scale satisfactorily and with unblemished record. It is not necessary for us to go into the details. Suffice it to say that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, which were in the peculiar facts of the case, are not perverse and need no interference by this Court in the special appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.” 12. In the light of the judgment rendered in Jagdish Prasad (Supra) passed by the Coordinate Bench, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to regularize the service of petitioner from the his initial appointment i.e. July, 1985 on the post of Photographer with all consequential benefits within the period of three months from today. All pending applications stand disposed of.